4.6 Article

Rescreening for genetic mutations using multi-gene panel testing in patients who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening

Journal

GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY
Volume 139, Issue 2, Pages 211-215

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2015.08.006

Keywords

Single gene testing; Multi-gene panel testing; Ovarian cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective. The availability of next-generation sequencing and identification of multiple cancer-related genes has caused a shift away from single gene testing towards multi-gene panel testing for hereditary cancer syndromes. However, the utility of panels in individuals who previously underwent non-informative genetic screening has yet to be evaluated. We aim to evaluate the use of rescreening and results of multi-gene panels in this rescreened population. Methods. We reviewed the medical records for patients who had previously undergone genetic testing and then underwent multi-gene panel testing at a single institution between 9/2013 and 11/2014. Results. One hundred and twenty-seven patients with prior genetic testing underwent multi-gene panels. One hundred and four patients (82%) had a history of cancer and 118 (93%) had at least one family member with cancer. On primary testing, no pathogenic mutations were detected and 10 patients (8%) were found to have variants of uncertain significance (VUS). On repeat multi-gene panel testing, nine patients (7%) were found to have a pathogenic mutation and 53 patients (42%) were VUS not identified on prior testing. Conclusions. Seven percent of patients with non-informative primary testing were found to have a pathogenic mutation with multi-gene panels, suggesting that there is a potential benefit to be gained from rescreening. However, 42% of patients were found to have new VUS with panels, a result that can cause patients anxiety without clear clinical implications. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available